Gujarat High Court
Bhagvanji Nathabhai Savsani vs State Of Gujarat & Others on 1 March, 2017
Author: Paresh Upadhyay
Bench: Paresh Upadhyay
C/SCA/18762/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18762 of 2013
==========================================================
BHAGVANJI NATHABHAI SAVSANI ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS ....Respondents
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
MR RASHESH RINDANI, AGP for the Respondents No. 1-2
MR ANAND L SHARMA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
Date : 01/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.02.2017. Registry has placed the matter for appropriate order, under following circumstances.
2. This Court had allowed the petition vide oral order dated 01.02.2017. The order remained in correction and after corrections, it is transferred to the common pool yesterday. In the meantime, respondent No.3 had applied for certified copy of the order on 03.02.2017 and the copy was prepared by the Registry on 03.02.2017 itself. It was notified on 04.02.2017 and was delivered on 15.02.2017. The certified copy contains only one line :- "1. The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012 from the" Plain reading of this would indicate that there was some Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Thu Mar 02 00:38:35 IST 2017 C/SCA/18762/2013 ORDER error by the Registry while giving the certified copy. This could be a bone fide mistake and the matter need not be stretched further on that count. The order dated 01.02.2017 is signed, it is on record and is also transferred to the common pool, which contains total seven pages (Paras : 1 to 6.5). Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the incorrect certified copy, which was received by him, is returned to the Registry. The same is on record.
3. Under above circumstances, the application of respondent No.3 dated 03.02.2017 for certified copy of the order dated 01.02.2017, would thus still remain pending with the Registry. The certified copy, which may be given to the respondent No.3 now, would be against the said application dated 03.02.2017, so that it may not prejudicially affect the right of the loosing party, qua limitation.
4. Registry to do needful.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Salim/1 Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Thu Mar 02 00:38:35 IST 2017